Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths.
In addition, he narrows the scope of the argument by constructing a diatribe exclusively regarding Abrahamic religions mainly Judaism and Christianity. Lastly, his blatant blame of immorality on religion comes off as ignorant and rather over simplified due to multiple other factors affecting moral or immoral deeds. Therefore, this response will attempt to examine Dawkins argument of morality of religions and the idea of a zeitgeist. It will do so by examining the subjectivity of morality, Dawkins’s limited scope, the zeitgeist, and the immorality of religion. Dawkins demonstrates the immorality of religion through various biblical stories.
Christians believe that money should be utilized for the common good which differentiates immensely from the ideas of Nietzsche who believes in nobility, powerful, warriors etc. Nietzsche believes that Priests are the worst enemies because they are educated but powerless. It is because of this worthiness that “hatred grows to monstrous and uncanny proportions, to the most spiritual and poisonous kind of hatred”. This in turn, is a driver for the priest to get
While reading about hate in Jesus and the Disinherited, I found out that hating is something of which to be ashamed unless it provides for you a form of validation and prestige. If either is provided then the immoral or moral character of the hatred id transformed into positive violence. It says that Christianity has been almost sentimental in its effort to deal with hatred in human life. It has sought to get rid of hatred by preachments, by moralizing, by platitudinous judgment. There is not a definition for hatred, but it can be described.
As a prominent English humanist, More wrote Utopia with an intended audience of other important, educated individuals who might hold some degree of power or influence. While the work was exceptionally absurd and impractical in terms reality, the blatant juxtaposition it assumed would have likely forced readers to stop and contemplate the order of their social and political systems in contrast to More’s new, fictional model. By comparing aspects of Utopian religion as they mirrored, slightly altered from, or were disparate from the beliefs of the English church, More makes a profound philosophical inquiry about both misinterpretations and representations of the Bible and religious hypocrisy, but also demonstrates the inescapable social and political issues that will always exist in a society with
Atheism 2.0 possess the characterizations of empowerment, tolerance, and optimism. Atheism 2.0 gives off a more uplifting and positive vibe rather than the tone previously given by New Atheism. Atheism 2.0 does make some arguments but does not outright argue against religion. In a video by The Human Project, they state their disapproval of religion by stating "A 1,000 years ago, we were all God 's creation, except the guys next door were heathens." The Human Project is pointing out their discontentment with the doctrine of religion and the hypocrisy they see in it.
Professor Girard claims that Emerson is not transcendentalist and he brings some reasons to admit this idea. He says that because Emerson had no system who was more poet than philosopher. He asserts that due to Emerson rationalism, he did not allow reason to come up and many more reasons. This animosity shows itself when Emerson in one of his interview mentioned �they are not good citizen�� Girard believes that transcendentalism has religious aspects but he cannot deny that transcendentalism has philosophical aspects as well. He says England has two distinct phase in which first one is up to 1835 and then the second phase started.
For many adherents, religion is holy and pure, rising above the concerns of everyday life, while politics is exactly the opposite, grubby in a way that displays the worst aspects of human nature. But although faith and government might not seem like a natural marriage, squaring this relationship is precisely what Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison try to do in On the Social Contract and Memorial and Remonstrance, respectively. Madison and Rousseau wrote barely two decades apart, and they reviewed much of the same historical information in preparing their analyses. Therefore, one might think that their political philosophies, and thoughts on religion, would align closely. However, they actually have key points of disagreement; namely, Rousseau wants the state to play an active role in religion, whereas Madison does not.
The main differences between the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment is that the Enlightenment was a movement started by the philosophers and scientists centered on scientific spirit and reasoning. However, the Great Awakening was a religious and spiritual movement. For example, Document A states, ”You have sown the harmful seeds of separation and disorder among us”. This shows that George Whitefield was a dangerous man and was spreading harmful ideas. Also, in Document A, the test explains “You have stopped the spread of the Gospel, and hurt the Peace and good Order”.
Darrius Jackson Professor Origill Western Civilization 11/19/2014 Voltaire's wrote Candide to show his view on how society and class, religion, warfare, and the idea of progress. Voltaire was a deist and he believed in religious equality, he wrote Candide to attack all aspects of its social structure by satirizing religion, society and social order by showing his hypocrisy. Voltaire was a prominent figure during the enlightenment era. Although he was not a typical enlightenment writer at his time because he wrote about issues including social freedom, religious inequality and civil liberty that other philosophers did not at the time. Voltaire's outspoken opinions made him very unpopular and landed him in jail but that did not stop him from
He uses examples to explain the differences between just and unjust laws (4). Also how everything that Adolf Hitler did was legal but immoral, just like what America was doing at the time (4). He uses religious, historical, and political examples to show the clergymen that he is just as educated as they are. His religious examples include Jesus who was an extremist for love, Paul the extremist for the word of God. It also includes Shadrach, Meshach, Abendigo who refused to obey Nebuchadnezzar’s immoral laws, Amos the extremist for justice, and Martin Luther who was another example of a religious extremist (6).
People are devilish and they should be rebuked and the devils cast from the souls of hell. Religion has been stated to provide inspiration, and is the force that bind individuals together. However, organized faith has its disadvantages. So keep an open mind when dealing with religion. Some do not believe there is a God, or that God cease to exist.
Root seemed to convey the idea that certainty is the enemy of science; that science is humble to being open to its theories being disproved. However, I personally see science as being a more rigid set of facts than theology. On the Root presented Christianity as having a pessimistic reputation of refusing to be uncertain. Just a week earlier, I had a conversation with an atheist who confirmed this, saying that Christians act like they’re the ones who have to have everything defended and can never be wrong. However, I personally feel like I have experienced the exact opposite in my theology classes; the more I learn about theology, the more I realize that I’ll never be able to learn everything.
Despite many scientist of the Scientific Revolution remaining fairly religious, these men were heavily influenced by scholasticism. For instance, Isaac Newton challenged the typical way of thinking in Europe; he wanted to know exactly how and why and yet simply believed the study of nature was helping with understanding God (Lecture). However, many felt resentment for these scientist and their ideas of scientific reasoning. In fact, when Galilei advanced the telescope many religious leaders refused to look through it (Lecture). Unlike the scientist of the Scientific Revolution, philosophers of the French Enlightenment fought to weaken the institution of religion.
McGrath states, “Yet the tone of his writings of the early 1920’s is unquestionably atheistic… Severely critical if not totally dismissive of religion in general and Christianity in particular” (McGrath 131). This proves that he was in fact atheist at one point in his life and his Christian beliefs may not have affected his writing at all. He even has atheistic remarks in his book Mere Christianity; he says, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust” (Lewis 38). His beliefs actually had a huge impact on his writing. McGrath says, “Yet whether one thinks Christianity is good or bad, it is clearly important- and Lewis is perhaps the most credible and influential popular representative of ‘Mere Christianity’ that he himself championed” (McGrath xi).